Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Stormwater 3 Acre Study topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee pauses direction on 3‑acre stormwater rule, seeks more ANR detail before study
Summary
Members of the Natural Resources & Energy committee discussed the mandate tied to a 3‑acre stormwater threshold, the federal TMDL driving that number, notice and equity concerns, and whether to use special assessments rather than impact fees; they agreed to delay formal direction until Agency of Natural Resources staff can supply more detail.
Members of the Natural Resources & Energy committee on Thursday opened a detailed discussion of a planned study of the state’s 3‑acre stormwater threshold and related implementation schedule, but held off directing staff while seeking more information from the Agency of Natural Resources (ANR).
The committee’s focus was the study language in a draft starting on page 11 and the consequences of changing the rule that currently captures parcels of three acres or more for more stringent stormwater controls. “I would like to not be here having the same discussion in three years,” a committee member said, pressing for a study that resolves outstanding technical and equity questions now rather than later.
Committee members said the 3‑acre threshold derives from modeling tied to the federal Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for phosphorus in impaired waters. As explained in the meeting, when the Environmental Protection Agency and ANR modeled required phosphorus reductions they “backed into” an amount of stormwater-managed area that corresponded to roughly three acres; lowering the acreage threshold would change how the model apportions required reductions and could shift the regulatory burden to smaller commercial parcels if residential property were exempted.
Members emphasized several practical problems they want the study to address: how ANR prioritized properties on the state’s list (schools, mobile home parks and parcels with municipal cooperation have been prioritized), how notices to affected property owners were issued, and the legal/permit history that left some subdivisions “orphaned” without valid, transferable permits.
“I think they have done that work and we need to make sure they come back and explain how they prioritized,” the committee member said, referring to ANR staff. Several members said some property owners received official letters only in the fall of 2023, after municipalities had been notified earlier — a sequence they called problematic for transparency and real estate transactions.
Members also discussed the 2002 stormwater manual and permit changes after the early‑2000s regulatory updates. The committee heard that the 2002 manual incorporated new impervious‑surface and sediment‑reduction concepts; permit issuance and renewal practices in the late 1990s and early 2000s left some developments without current permits when later rules were adopted.
On financing compliance, witnesses and members urged avoiding language that would automatically create a municipal “impact fee.” The committee discussed instead authorizing stormwater special assessments limited to a geographic stormwater district. “If you start expanding the use of those fees beyond what your con[ditions] are, then it becomes a taking,” one committee member said, arguing for careful statutory wording to limit assessments to stormwater purposes and the defined area.
Members also asked staff to compile a simple timeline for committee and floor presentations that explains which stormwater standards applied in given years (for example, what standard applied to homes built in the 1980s versus after 2002) so legislators and affected property owners can understand how permit history drives present eligibility for relief or requirements.
Rather than issue immediate direction to lodge counsel or advance study language, the committee agreed to request that ANR return with more granular materials — including any existing prioritization, cost estimates and a clearer explanation of the modeling that produced the three‑acre figure. The chair said the committee will delay formal direction to the legislature’s counsel until that ANR briefing.
The discussion also covered implementation scheduling in the draft bill: members noted that some implementation dates referenced in the draft had been pushed back and asked that any extension be paired with firm notice requirements for property owners. One committee member proposed language requiring notice “to all affected property owners, not just municipalities.”
Members and one participant representing affected property owners described the financial and title consequences for sellers when permits are missing. The committee discussed common remedies property owners use — such as escrowed funds to cover potential future repairs — and noted the uncertainty about how to calculate those escrows because remediation costs are not predictable.
The committee scheduled a follow‑up with ANR to review the prioritization and modeling details before taking further legislative action or instructing counsel to finalize study language.
The committee did not take a formal vote during this session; members described the meeting as a fact‑finding step that will guide a later decision once ANR provides the requested material.
